Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that MCP approval requirements are configurable and business workflow approvals always apply, which is useful authorization context, but it does not explain what reordering does to existing records, atomicity, failure behavior, or required permissions in specific terms.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The approval sentence is somewhat generic, but the overall text is efficient and does not bury the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with a nested parameter, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits ordering semantics, scope, prerequisites, and how the phaseIds array should be interpreted, leaving only a generic approval note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the nested data.phaseIds parameter or that the array order likely represents the desired phase order. For a mutation whose core semantic is ordering, the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Reorder phase records." It distinguishes the tool from sibling resources such as reorder_pipeline_stage and reorder_milestone_columns by naming phase records, but it does not clarify scope or explicitly route against update_phase/list_phase.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_phase, list_phase, or other reorder siblings. The approval sentence describes an administrative condition but does not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.